The Instigator
SocialPsyche
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points
The Contender
qwzx
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Evolution is true and Biblical Creation is false

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
SocialPsyche
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/21/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 634 times Debate No: 73914
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

SocialPsyche

Pro

The argument between evolution and biblical creation is a long lasting one and it may take some time to officially resolve. I, myself, fall under the side of those in support of evolution. This scientific theory has been proven time and time again by methods such as the fossil record(1) and the E. Coli experiment(2), though these are not the only methods. I also enjoyed the Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham debate(3), during which Bill Nye pointed out a good amount of evidence pointing towards evolution and against biblical creation, some of which may be cited in this debate.

On the flip side, I haven't seen any good evidence, or evidence at all, for biblical creation, just faulty arguments and false claims of proof. I am an open-minded person and if someone is willing to take up this debate and defend biblical creation, providing good evidence to support it, as Bill Nye said at the end of his debate, I will gladly convert my ideology to that of creationism.

(1) http://evolution.berkeley.edu...
(2) http://en.wikipedia.org...
(3) https://www.youtube.com...
qwzx

Con

I would like to start off my debate with a few points for Pro to consider.....

Pro will have Bop in this debate.

Does good evidence exist for creationism? Can that evidence for creationism be classified as very good evidence? If so, what is the very best evidence for creationism? Creation is one of two possible origin explanations. Both life and everything we see was either created or it evolved by a random process. Consequently, any evidence against evolution is very good evidence for creationism. Alternatively, evidence for creationism can be direct evidence rather than evidence against evolution. To identify the very best evidence for creationism, we need to look at both the best indirect evidence (against evolution) and the best direct evidence for creation. There is much evidence against biological macroevolution. Some of Darwin"s evidence used to support evolution is now refuted because of more modern scientific evidence. One fact is that body parts or entities could not have evolved gradually. Michael Behe discovered that cells were irreducibly complex. They needed every single chemical and part to function. Consequently, they could not have gradually evolved. Another evidence was the complete lack of transitional forms in the fossil record. We have not been able to create life from non-life regardless of how hard we have tried. We have not been able to create one species from another even with human intervention. The things that have been used as examples of evolution either have supported microevolution or have been hoaxes, frauds, or have used artistic license to extrapolate conclusions without justification. However, the best evidences against macroevolution and hence the very best evidence for creationism, is the unimaginable complexity and machine-like workings of a single cell including DNA, RNA, and the manufacture of proteins, etc. None of this was known during Darwin"s time. They thought the cell was a simple blob of protoplasm. The human genome contains so much information it would fill libraries if contained in books. The machine-like workings of a cell have been related to our most sophisticated factories. Nobody would ever suggest that random processes could generate libraries of information or make a manufacturing plant. This favors creationism. The Big Bang theory is the current scientific explanation of our origin. It places the origin of our universe at a specific time in the past. So whether we believe in science or believe in creation or both, we believe we came from nothing at a specific time in the past. The difference is that the Big Bang states that everything was created from nothing without a cause or a purpose. Alternatively, if we believe in creation, we believe that everything came from nothing by the will of an omnipotent, transcendent Creator that is not limited to time and space and we were created for a purpose. This completely explains how apparent design and complexity could have come into existence. However, the very best evidence for creationism is the claim by God Himself that He created light, the universe, the Earth and all life. You might question whether that argument holds up under scientific scrutiny? We all know the creation story in Genesis, but how can we know directly through scientific rationale that it is true. We can show that it was written in the Old Testament, but how can we show direct evidence that it is true? We only need to accept the most thoroughly documented history in existence and examine the evidence for who Jesus was. Our calendar is based upon the birth of Jesus. How historical is that? In Mark 13:19 (NKJV) Jesus stated, "For in those days there will be tribulation, such as has not been from the beginning of creation which God created until this time, nor ever shall be." Could Jesus have been anything other than what He claimed to be, the God of creation? C.S. Lewis in "Mere Christianity" addresses the possibilities of who Jesus could have been. He concludes that He couldn"t have just been a great moral teacher. He had to be the Son of God, a lunatic or the Devil. He certainly wasn"t a lunatic or the Devil so He had to be the Son of God. If He is the Son of God and He said God created everything, then this is the very best direct evidence for creationism.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
SocialPsyche

Pro

First of all, I would like to clarify a clear misconception you have about biological evolution. You mention numerous times throughout your argument that there is evidence for microevolution, which I am happy to see, but that there is no evidence for macroevolution. Within the scientific community, biologists tend not to use either of those terms and stick to simple "evolution." This is because micro and macroevolution only refer to the amount of time that evolution is taking place over, but they are governed by the same evolutionary process. By this logic, if there is evidence for microevolution, which you acknowledge there is, that means that if you widen the scope of time you are looking at evolution, you can observe macroevolution as well. The problem, of course, is that, by most people's standards for the time scale of macroevolution, it would be impossible for any single person or group of people to directly observe this, but that is not all that science is.

Science is not all about direct observation, and if you think it is, I'd like to ask if you were there when God supposedly created everything; science will accept something as fact if it has gathered enough evidence for it, whether it be by direct observation or indirect observation (directly observing evidence that strongly points to a conclusion.) As I mentioned in my opening statement, there is evidence such as the fossil record, which does not have as many of these "missing transitional fossils" as you'd think(1), and the study of DNA and Genetics(2) to show the evolutionary process.

Now, about your claims of Darwin and his knowledge of evolution and how it has changed. When Darwin first developed the Theory of Evolution and published it in his book On the Origin of Species, his idea of evolution was flawed in many of the specific details, but the general idea of species evolving that he came up with stands true to this day. As he did not have advanced equipment for studies, it was hard to pinpoint the exact mechanism by which evolution works, but through observational studies in animals such as Darwin's Finches(3) (only being one of many,) he was able to deduce accurately that evolution does exist. Since then we've been able to more accurately study and describe how biological evolution works. It is not some complex process as you seem to think it is, it is simply survival of the fittest. When DNA replicates, mutations may occur (I suggest watching this video to help understand(4).) If mutations occur in the sex cells, these mutations are passed along to their offspring. Should these random mutations prove to be beneficial to that organism, the organism is able to survive and pass the beneficial genes onto its offspring; should these mutations prove to be harmful, the organism may not survive and then the mutations die out with it. By this process, random but beneficial gene mutations are sucessfully passed on to generation after generation until they accumulate to produce larger, visible changes. Those changes accumulate to eventually form what we could consider a new species, or at least a transitional form. This process, as you would call macroevolution, does take millions of years, but is easily provable using fossil records and studying DNA.

As for the creation of life and the universe, we are still unsure on many of the specifics, and we've come to terms with being able to say "we don't know" about a lot of things regardng those subjects. For example, we do not know, nor do we have a good hypothesis about, the origin of life on this planet. We do not know the specifics of the Big Bang, but we do know it happened. We can observe indirect evidence throughout our universe that conclusively points to the Big Bang, such as the fact that our universe is expanding at an increasing rate and that it is hotter near what is believed to be the center(5). One hypothesis on the origin of the singularity that sparked the Big Bang is quantum fluctuations. On the normal scale of physics, it is true that nothing can come from nothing, but on the quantum level of physics, the normal laws of physics do not apply. It has been observed that matter or energy can appear out of nothing and disappear right back into it. This could explain where the singularity came from, and the rest is up to the Big Bang Theory to explain.

Lastly, if you're going to try to use religious text from the Bible to prove some kind of point, you are going to have to first prove that the Bible, or any other religious book you cite, is valid, but that is topic for another debate.

If I missed any of your points, point them out again in your next argument and I should get to them.

(1) http://en.wikipedia.org...
(2) http://humanorigins.si.edu...
(3) http://en.wikipedia.org...
(4) https://www.youtube.com...
(5) http://www.ctc.cam.ac.uk...
qwzx

Con

qwzx forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
SocialPsyche

Pro

As you forfeited Round #2, I'm assuming unintentionally, I will simply make a couple small points I realized I missed in my Round #2 argument. For your Round #3, just refute my Round #2 and Round #3. Now into the rebuttles.

"We have not been able to create one species from another even with human intervention."
With this statement, you act as though human intervention is the standard for natural processes. Well, it's not. Hundreds of years ago, someone might have been able to say "Humans can't creat water, so water must have been created by God." Now, however, we understand chemistry well enough that we could, conceivably, take 2 Hydrogen atoms and 1 Oxygen atom and fuse them, creating water. As our scientific knowledge advances, we will some day be able to induce evolution on a scale that would normally take too long to directly witness, and then that whole argument will fly out the door. Just because humans haven't been able to do something yet does not make it some natural standard.

"The difference is that the Big Bang states that everything was created from nothing without a cause or a purpose. Alternatively, if we believe in creation, we believe that everything came from nothing by the will of an omnipotent, transcendent Creator that is not limited to time and space and we were created for a purpose."
What's wrong with the universe not having a cause? As I explained in my Round #2 argument, essentially, causality does not apply on the quantum level, which is where the singularity most likely came from. I would propose this to you: where did your God come from? If you say he's always been here, how is that even possible? How can you justify saying something has always been around? Even an omnipotent being couldn't will itself into existence, and we've never observed Gods popping into existence before, even on the quantum level. The difference between the Big Bang and your God creating it is that we have evidence that strongly points to the Big Bang, whereas you have an ancient book written by unknown sources. Also, just because we can't say that we are 100% sure of what happened in regards to the Big Bang does not give you permission to automatically insert God. Weather used to be attributed to God of various gods, then we discovered how weather worked and that argument disappeared. I have no doubt that we will, some day, be able to know exactly how the Big Bang happened.
qwzx

Con

qwzx forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
SocialPsyche

Pro

At this point it would appear that Con has either given up or will not be on by the end of this debate. I can't say for sure, but I see no reason to post an argument for this. Vote Pro, I suppose.
qwzx

Con

qwzx forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by NothingSpecial99 2 years ago
NothingSpecial99
Just a small thing but could con please separate arguments into paragraphs. Reading it is a bit of an eyesore
Posted by asapiophobia 2 years ago
asapiophobia
This isn't even fair for the cons lol. Most people have accepted evolution now and creationist believers are down to like 40% and on the decline.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Chaosism 2 years ago
Chaosism
SocialPsycheqwzxTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit by Con. Con's only presented argument was one continuous string, rather than being logically broken up into paragraphs, which hurt readability. Spelling/Grammar to Pro.